| Revision as of 11:43, 19 May 2013 editVanishedUser sdu8asdasd (talk | contribs)31,778 edits →Wikipediocracy← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:12, 19 May 2013 edit undoDronkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,793 edits commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ] (]) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ] (]) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet ], ] or ]. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines. ] ] 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet ], ] or ]. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines. ] ] 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment'''. I think that shows enough to demonstrate that, pace Jimbo, Kevin Morris is a proper journalist who has trained other proper journalists and that therefore his work for the Daily Dot counts as journalistic writing that counts as a reliable source. The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles except for the ''Salon'' one where it is identified as crucial in the exposure of Young. My ] says that it will soon pass the notability criteria with flying colours as it continues to collaborate with journalists in the exposure of problems here. Of course, there I is a chance that Wikipediocracy might end up as the subject of coverage in its own right as it continues to provide exposés on WP/WM.--] (]) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:12, 19 May 2013
Wikipediocracy
- Wikipediocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OK, may as well get this started: it just hasn't got enough coverage yet. Fails WP:GNG, specific guideline WP:WEB. Yes, it was mentioned in a reliable source, exactly once. Is The Daily Dot a reliable source? Hmm... Wikipediocracy is of course a WP:PRIMARY source about itself. And so on. Slashdot it ain't.
In my opinion, this AfD was inevitable, and probably best if an uncontroversial wikignome (and one who is happy to admit when they are wrong) kicks off.
Keep it nice and stick to the relevant criteria for deletion, people.
Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I think that shows enough to demonstrate that, pace Jimbo, Kevin Morris is a proper journalist who has trained other proper journalists and that therefore his work for the Daily Dot counts as journalistic writing that counts as a reliable source. The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles except for the Salon one where it is identified as crucial in the exposure of Young. My WP:Crystal Ball says that it will soon pass the notability criteria with flying colours as it continues to collaborate with journalists in the exposure of problems here. Of course, there I is a chance that Wikipediocracy might end up as the subject of coverage in its own right as it continues to provide exposés on WP/WM.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)